NEW EAT DECISIONS

Posted

These cases are unreported (although some may be reported in due course). The transcripts were recently posted on the EAT website.

RUGAMER v SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT UK LTD.(Douglas Brown J., 10th July 2001)A short delay by an employer in paying sick-pay, where there was a genuine dispute over whether the employee was malingering and the employer was seeking medical evidence, was not a fundamental breach of contract amounting to a constructive dismissal.

CHARLES v PROPERTY SERVICES(Mr Commissioner Howell QC, 27th July 2001)An employee claiming to be physically disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, but who was actually suffering from a functional overlay (ie there was nothing physically wrong with them, but he had a psychological condition which had the effect of physically handicapping him) was not suffering from a 'physical impairment' within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, there is no duty on a tribunal to investigate whether the functional overlay amounts to a 'mental impairment' within the meaning of the Act unless the parties call evidence on the point and pursue it as a discrete argument.

CLARKE v ARRIVA KENT THAMESIDE LTD.(Douglas Brown J., 25th July 2001)A useful summary of the principles relating to when a chairman can sit alone to hear a case.

CAMDON GROUP LTD v LAMB(HHJ Wakefield, 26th April 2001)An unrepresented employer's witnesses failed to attend the tribunal hearing because, for unforeseen reasons, the employer was understaffed and could not spare the witnesses on the day of the hearing. The chairman proceeded with the hearing without asking the employer whether it wished to seek an adjournment. The EAT held that there is no duty on a tribunal chairman to ask an unrepresented litigant whether they wish to apply for an adjournment in such circumstances.